Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION  (Read 367657 times)

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 645
They've reached the profit part of the equation. They're in a good place now. As they get better at reuse, as they can invest in better components becaused they're used more than once, that profit will only grow.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9943
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6759
  • Likes Given: 4538
If Elon decides to go for the Hail Mary 2nd stage recovery from presser, what sort of mission would likely provide best chance. Circular LEO or ellipse GTO?
I'm not totally clear how they would do it at all without fitting some kind of kit to give it legs and a second engine etc. (as we've discussed in many many threads) unless he means just seeing if they can splash it down gently (or land ON the bell which then gets squished)

... induce a deliberate roll. But that makes the control algorithms more complex I expect.

But... why? It works as intended. You are trying to solve something that is not a real problem. Besides, the grid fins are already being strengthened for block V.

Because even with titanium fins, if there is uneven heating, you have to handle higher heat loads than if you BBQ roll.

This is a minor point but I would not be surprised if they're thinking about it. OR if they already considered it and decided it's not worth the bother. OR decided that they are going to asymmetrically beef up their thermal protection.... who knows.

We'll find out.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 05:30 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Dublin/London
  • Liked: 324
  • Likes Given: 366
True but I think we won't see a sat launch on a BO vehicle for at least 4/5 years. That's a long time at the pace we have these days.

So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.

Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible.

I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.

So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?

SpaceX will not have a monopoly as long as Blue Origins is in the Orbital launch Market.  With Bezo's money, Blue Origins could just write off the entire development cost as money well spent.

Offline A12

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • ROME, ITALY
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 397

Then check what the others have achieved within the last 10 years: Arianespace, Boeing, Lockheed (=ULA), Japan. In total they brought 1 (ONE!) new rocket, the HIIB. All together.


They also made Vega

And the Epsilon

For what matters, I believe Vega development began in 1998, so, it took more than 10 years for the first flight.

Offline Jeff Lerner

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 35
Do we have any idea as to what was changed out or refurbished, percentage of changes, and the associated costs with those parts and labour, for this launch ??...

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5698
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 4981
  • Likes Given: 1393

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4301
  • Likes Given: 859
Nice flight.

Makes me think, what the people in ULA are thinking about their "safe" approach to Vulcan reusability.
Ultimately with reliability being equal, economics will be the decider...

... And schedule.

"Safe" approach  ironically, is years away.  It might very well end up a "Virgin Galactic" situation.

By the time SMART reuse becomes real, everyone will have moved on already.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 05:46 PM by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2849
  • Liked: 1971
  • Likes Given: 664
Do we have any idea as to what was changed out or refurbished, percentage of changes, and the associated costs with those parts and labour, for this launch ??...
Four months. According to Elon, "the core airframe remained the same, the engines remained the same, but any auxillary components that might be slightly questionable we changed out."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62i6m1/recap_of_the_elon_musk_and_martin_halliwell_press/dfmw95b/
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 05:58 PM by cscott »

Offline clegg78

  • I play KSP, so I know things about rockets and stuff... :)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Denver, CO
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 15
A Key thing I was wondering was about engines... were these all 9 reflown Merlins? (Same engines as CRS-8? or a mix of returned units?)   Were some new?  What mix?

Edit:  CScott answered that question immediately before :)
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 05:59 PM by clegg78 »
Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride - Hunter S Thompson

Online Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 1703
Nice flight.

Makes me think, what the people in ULA are thinking about their "safe" approach to Vulcan reusability.
Ultimately with reliability being equal, economics will be the decider...

... And schedule.

"Safe" approach  ironically, is years away.  It might very well end up a "Virgin Galactic" situation.

By the time SMART reuse becomes real, everyone will have moved on already.

Tory Bruno pretty much just repeated the party line over on r/spaceX when asked about how yesterday's success influences other commercial launch providers:
Quote from: /u/ToryBruno
Without dragging you through the math again...

Generally speaking:

1. We all want a solution that recovers as much valuable hardware as possible
2. Adds as little costs (logistics, refurb, etc) as possible
3. Can be done on as many missions as practical
4. Maximize the number of reuses

Full booster recovery gets the whole booster back (all the FS hardware). So it maximizes the value of hardware getting reused. However, it has a substantial performance hit if recovered down range, bigger for returns to origin. So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbit, so that enough fuel is left over to fly home with (the other portion of missions are still expendable). The booster must also experience hypersonic reentry which will affect refurbishment costs and the ultimate number of reuses.

An autonomous, powered engine flyback brings back less hardware value, but the engines are most of the cost of a booster. This requires less propellant, so it can be done more often. It also could eliminate hypersonic exposure if the engine is encapsulated. Logistics are minimal (no ship, etc)

SMART reuse is similar to autonomous flyback, but has essentially no performance hit, so it can be done every time. Its reentry shield also eliminates the hypersonics issue.

So, its a trade between getting everything back, but at higher logistics and refurb costs with fewer opportunities

VS

Getting some of the hardware back more often with lower costs.

We will all find out the answer after we try the different approaches.

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1429
  • Likes Given: 3864
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.

...

So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
No. BO will likely succeed. If the market expands and there is money to me made there are plenty of companies and nations that can spend a billion dollars on reusability. What SX proved is that reusability is not as expensive to develop as everyone assumed. Even if ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't do it (and I think at least one of them will eventually), China, India, and the ESA will.  Eventually.  Maybe Skylon gets funded.

That eventually will be way sooner than everyone seems to think. This was the re-launch and landing heard 'round the world.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 222
Quote from: /u/ToryBruno
Without dragging you through the math again...

Tory Bruno has to be an incredibly smart and talented fellow. But wow, when reality is staring you in the face...

Offline Bargemanos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 668
What about the fin getting really hot ?
It looks to lose pieces ...
It is aluminum coated with ablatives.  Future version will use higher temperature metal.

 - Ed Kyle
Well they have to, when i saw the images of the fin burning up and the stream of the landig stage freezing... i held my breath...

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3861
  • California
  • Liked: 3103
  • Likes Given: 1966
What about the fin getting really hot ?
It looks to lose pieces ...
It is aluminum coated with ablatives.  Future version will use higher temperature metal.

 - Ed Kyle
Well they have to, when i saw the images of the fin burning up and the stream of the landig stage freezing... i held my breath...

You holding your breath is not a sufficient reason for them to "have to" do anything.  ;) It may look bad, but the structure holds up pretty well. This is not the first flight where this fire/glow has been seen on grid fins.

Online Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 560
  • Likes Given: 154
Quote from: /u/ToryBruno
Without dragging you through the math again...

Tory Bruno has to be an incredibly smart and talented fellow. But wow, when reality is staring you in the face...

He lives in a world where you bolt on extra SRBs at a substantial cost based on mission needs.

SpaceX and even more so, Blue Origin has moved on to a world where you ensure your rocket has enough performance so that any spent on first stage recovery doesn't really matter - the payload still got where it needed to go and it did so at a much lower cost.

Once your rocket is "overkill" for almost all possible payloads, who cares how much of that you left to the table if the hardware costs of your launch just got slashed in half?

Offline garidan

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Italy
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 19
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.

...

So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
No. BO will likely succeed. If the market expands and there is money to me made there are plenty of companies and nations that can spend a billion dollars on reusability. What SX proved is that reusability is not as expensive to develop as everyone assumed. Even if ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't do it (and I think at least one of them will eventually), China, India, and the ESA will.  Eventually.  Maybe Skylon gets funded.

That eventually will be way sooner than everyone seems to think. This was the re-launch and landing heard 'round the world.

Knowing something can be done doesn't mean you can do it too.
There are things money cannot buy.
Japan lean system in automotive, their "total quality" approach, took years and a lot of retries to get done.
It's a system plus a culture to change.
You cannot buy another Elon Musk to steer a whole company toward a "vision"

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 222
What about the fin getting really hot ?
It looks to lose pieces ...
It is aluminum coated with ablatives.  Future version will use higher temperature metal.

 - Ed Kyle
Well they have to, when i saw the images of the fin burning up and the stream of the landig stage freezing... i held my breath...

You holding your breath is not a sufficient reason for them to "have to" do anything.  ;) It may look bad, but the structure holds up pretty well. This is not the first flight where this fire/glow has been seen on grid fins.

Well, Elon did say in the presser they were going to titanium fins.

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1429
  • Likes Given: 3864
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.

...

So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
No. BO will likely succeed. If the market expands and there is money to me made there are plenty of companies and nations that can spend a billion dollars on reusability. What SX proved is that reusability is not as expensive to develop as everyone assumed. Even if ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't do it (and I think at least one of them will eventually), China, India, and the ESA will.  Eventually.  Maybe Skylon gets funded.

That eventually will be way sooner than everyone seems to think. This was the re-launch and landing heard 'round the world.

Knowing something can be done doesn't mean you can do it too.
There are things money cannot buy.
Japan lean system in automotive, their "total quality" approach, took years and a lot of retries to get done.
It's a system plus a culture to change.
You cannot buy another Elon Musk to steer a whole company toward a "vision"
1. Blue Origin exists, is backed by billionaire Jeff Bezos and is building a rocket factory at KSC.
2. Once something is known to be possible and profitable there are always fast followers. As a non-business example, read up on the history of the 4 minute mile.

I am a huge fan of SpaceX and Elon Musk but they are mere mortals, others will follow. And that is a good thing.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline clegg78

  • I play KSP, so I know things about rockets and stuff... :)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Denver, CO
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 15
I think of all the companies, BO is taking the most pragmatic, well funded, and deliberate path.   They are learning from SpaceX's mistakes letting Elon forge the path and spend the capital finding the way forward on reusable.  Then improving on that.

I think the future will be BO and SpaceX eclipsing ULA, while ULA will keep its friends in the DoD and NRO for a while to come.
Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride - Hunter S Thompson

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3861
  • California
  • Liked: 3103
  • Likes Given: 1966
Quote from: /u/ToryBruno
Without dragging you through the math again...

Tory Bruno has to be an incredibly smart and talented fellow. But wow, when reality is staring you in the face...

He lives in a world where you bolt on extra SRBs at a substantial cost based on mission needs.

SpaceX and even more so, Blue Origin has moved on to a world where you ensure your rocket has enough performance so that any spent on first stage recovery doesn't really matter - the payload still got where it needed to go and it did so at a much lower cost.

Once your rocket is "overkill" for almost all possible payloads, who cares how much of that you left to the table if the hardware costs of your launch just got slashed in half?

Bingo... With Atlas V, you would need to bolt on 1-2 extra SRBs to get the margin to recover the entire booster. It is a completely different philosophy. One that was perfect for the early EELV projections, but not when you have a competitor who is happy and able to fly with lots of performance margin.

Tags: